From the AMERICAN CHEMICAL SOCIETY comes this counter-intuitive finding:
During heat waves, urban trees can increase ground-level ozone
Previous research has shown that planting trees in cities can have multiple benefits, including storing carbon, controlling storm water and cooling areas off by providing shade. This has spurred efforts in cities across the U.S. and Europe to encourage the practice. However, it’s also known that trees and other plants release volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, that can interact with other substances and contribute to air pollution. And when it’s hot, plants release higher levels of VOCs. Galina Churkina and colleagues wanted to investigate what effects heat waves and urban vegetation might have on air pollution.
The researchers compared computer models of air pollutant concentrations in the Berlin-Brandenburg metropolitan area in Germany in the summer of 2006, when there was a heat wave, and the summer of 2014, which had more typical seasonal temperatures. The simulation showed that during the summer of 2006, VOCs from urban greenery contributed to about 6 to 20 percent of the ozone formation, and that during the heat wave period, the contribution spiked to up to 60 percent. The researchers suggest that in addition to tree-planting campaigns, efforts to improve cities’ environments should include other measures such as reducing vehicular traffic, a major source of nitrogen oxides that can react with VOCs and form ozone.
###
The authors acknowledge funding from E.U. COST’s GreenInUrbs project.
The paper’s abstract is here: http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/acs.est.6b06514.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
1. Plant lots of trees 2. Replace diesel vehicles.
Sorted.
Just say NO
Do you mean NOx?
No say
“STOP IT”
James Bull
3. Drive around town with a big tanker truck full of Freon 12 and release some near any trees that are present to break down the Ozone.
I would love to see the equations they use for all these computer model studies, and how they derive the coefficients.
POOMA
[The mods must ask if that POOMA has a greater, or less, heating value per cubic cc than POOPMA?
Which has greater heating value per gm? .mod]
Obviously you are referring to the well-known guesstimation acronym, “Preliminary Order of Magnitude Approximation.”
Read the papers.
But don’t bother trying to reproduce the methods.
seaice1 wrote, “Read the papers.”
Paywalled and pricy.
To gain access:
Purchase temporary access to this content.
ACS Members purchase additional access options
Ask your library to provide you and your colleagues site-wide access to ACS Publications.
Use your free ACS Member Universal Access (if available)
Purchase This Content
Choose from the following options:
$40.00 for 48 hours of access
Members, log in with your ACS ID to see your reduced price.
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/full/10.1021/acs.est.6b06514
A quick online search shows that the models are available free. There appears to be copious documentation.
Since trees also create VOCs when they are NOT in cities, we better rid ourselves of all of them….. No Wait ! They store carbon, so keep them. …. No Wait ! A recent “scientific” study also shows they do not store ENOUGH carbon to really help us. So what good are they?
Bye.. Bye Trees.
BURN them all for BIOFUELS.
/sarc, sarc, and sarc.
Too much BS for one day. Over and Out!
Absurd absolute.
Compared computer models?????? WTF! They are in a large metropolitan city. Can’t they get off their behinds and actually take measurements of VOC’s during these times, then use a computer to tabulate their findings? And maybe even verify their models?
Exactly my thought.
As soon as I saw the word “simulation” I knew it was bogus. How hard would it be to set up a few sensors to monitor the air? Or maybe they are afraid reality would not duplicate their simulations! Cities have had trees for millennia, don’t these people ever study?
PMK
..Have you seen the size of some of those “behinds” ?? I think they grown permanently fixed into those chairs !!
rbabcock
YOU’RE PROPOSING THEY ACTUALLY GO OUT INTO THE POLUTED AIR? OH, THE HUMANITY!
Your methods are outdated and overrated. Only true science by computer can produce research that shows that, inter alia, trees in cities provide shade.
Compared computer models?????? WTF!
Lazy pseudo science.
No #FakeScience
They did, the computer model was used to estimate what fraction of the O3 was due to biogenic VOCs.
They used data from two events. It’s there if you bother to read.
The result of the simulation seems to be a hypothesis about VOC’s. Don’t they now have to prove it by observation?
Already done. The literature is full of VOCs from trees. For example:
https://earthzine.org/2016/02/15/the-trouble-with-trees-volatile-organic-compounds-exacerbate-climate-change-and-air-pollution/
I chose this reference because of its opening line:
“Scientists are using sophisticated emission models. . .”
On a serious note, this one (2009) is from the US tree people:
https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/units/urban/focus/air_quality_climate/
Great Smoky Mountains
“Shaconage” (Sha-Kon-O-Hey): land of the blue smoke
gives the region an almost magical quality
John,
Right on!
http://www.tnenvironment.org/Presentations/Renfro_AQ_ETN_EnvConf_030906.pdf
No doubt Liz Warren knows what that means.
How dare you! That would require, like, work and stuff. That gets in the way of creating more models.
Trees also add water vapor through transpiration which makes the air more humid and lowers wind speeds below their canopies. Biological stress from heat Increases with dry bulb T, RH, and decreases with wind speed (at light and moderate speeds).
Computer simulations? Did they have real data in this study?
Wyguy – you are behind the times. In climate science, model output IS (are) data! It is then available for use as input parameters in other models, and so on and so on. Real data? Come on, guy, that’s SOOOOO… twentieth century. I mean, really, how can you expect them to get the results that show “it’s worse then we thought” and/or “we’re all going to die” if they’re at the mercy of messy, unpredictable real-world data?
Better add /sarc for the humourless cohort.
Read. They used data from two events.
They simply needed an excuse to cut them trees up and burn them as mandatory biofeed in the nearest coal plant. All this is humanities fault. So fleece them to the bone.
Aren’t those some of the same VOC’s emitted from fossil fuels (the ancient residue of vegetation) when they are refined or incompletely combusted? And aren’t trees and their pollen a very real and proven cause of asthma attacks (unlike the tenuous associations made with small particulates by combining poorly done epidemiological studies with linear no-threshold models of toxicity)? Not to mention the epidemic of trauma when children climb trees and fall. And surely many citizens must complain the trees obstruct the view of wind turbines and solar arrays. And the leaves – what a chore! We need a global agreement to limit trees before the environment is so stuffed with them that there is nowhere left to have our climate meetings.
“We need a global agreement to limit trees before the environment is so stuffed with them that there is nowhere left to have our climate meetings.”
Absurd absolute.
Hmmm, did you learn a new “talking point” from your masters today little one ? You seem to be stuck on it !
Where’s Griff?
He has a much broader vocabulary of talking points.
seaice1, you really don’t get it? The purpose of making absurd statements is to mock the absurd statements made every day by the warmunists.
“Absurd absolute.”
Humorless twit.
To paraphase Obi Wan Kanobi, the Stupid runs stong in this one….
I believe his name is Obi Wang Canopy
He is half chinese, half tree.
I thought he was O B 1.
Volatile organic compounds produced by trees do not cause pollution. Photo-chemical ozone pollution is created when vehicle and power plant pollution is broken down by strong sunlight in the presence of any number of volatile organic compounds. Photo-chemical smog is only ever created in areas that receive large amounts of pollution from vehicles and power plants. Without the input of large amounts of man-made nitrogen oxides by vehicles and power plants, the VOCs released by forests on a summers day have nothing to react with and they do not create any pollution.
In layman’s terms… The concentrations of humans breathing, vehicular and industrial pollutants are being trapped because the blocking effects of the Flora by density, doesn’t allow enough wind to remove those pollutants from the vicinity. Kind of like the Amazon Rain Forest without the dense population of people.
You a wrong to say “Volatile organic compounds produced by trees do not cause pollution.” To use just one example, natural volatile organic compounds (VOC) produce NOx (mainly NO and NO2) by reaction with atmospheric nitrogen. This usually occurs when organic radicals (mainly charged H, HC, CH2 radicals) react with atmospheric nitrogen (N2) to produce nitrogen compounds like HN, HCN, and H2CN. These nitrogen compounds then oxidize in to produce NOx that, in turn, react with VOC’s to produce ozone. ( in fairness similar nitrogen compounds are produced as the result man-made combustion, but, are considered minor sources of anthropogenic NOx). VOCs also react with volcanic sourced SO2 to create “vog”… one type of natures many natural smog’s.
You are also wrong to say “Without the input of large amounts of man-made nitrogen oxides by vehicles and power plants, the VOCs released by forests on a summers day have nothing to react with and they do not create any pollution.” I sorry, but your statement suggests a serious lack of understanding of the complexity of atmospheric chemistry. One can point to, as examples, the direct detrimental health impacts created by natural aldehydes, natural oxygenated VOCs, natural NOx, natural SO2, and natural peroxyacyl nitrates… all components of photo-chemical smog.
For example, a considerable amount of NOx is produced by nature via natural combustion (forest fires, volcanoes, and lighting. NOx is commonly produced any time you have a combustion processes in with nitrogen (N2) and water present… and man isn’t the only source of high temperature heat. Lighting alone produces and estimate 8.6 million tonnes/yr of NOx… compared to an estimated 28.5 million tonnes from fossil fuels. (According to Wikipedia under the heading “NOx”)
Moreover, NOx is continually produce biologically during the nitrogen fixation process both as a result of natural fixation and during the breakdown of nitrogen fertilizers. I don’t have estimates of the amount of NOx produced biologically, but, I’m willing to bet the amount of natural NOx produced exceeds the amount of manmade NOx alone.
As for the study above, we’ve know for decades that cities surrounded by forested areas have more problems with natural “smog” issues than cities surrounded by barren areas. The study simply illustrates how even relatively small amounts of vegetation within a city can impact “smog” issues.
Get real! Yeah pollution can be a problem, but only an idjit would argue trees are a problem. We evolved in the forest and I’m only a geologist and engineer, but vocs are normal and no matter their reactions to produce NOx which probably winds up as a fertilizer in the natural enviro. If it makes ozone buddy, it’s therefore good for you. Almonds and other fruit seeds and nuts contain cyanide, but a lethal dose of milk will kill you dead with 100% certainty.
I’m a year away from 80 and am still working and I used to play with mercury as did my friends, the family used mercurichrome for antiseptic, gargled with iodine in water for a sore throat. I found an old lead weight used for anchoring a delivery horse lead while the milk man, ice man or junk man made a delivery or pick up. I used to melt it in the house furnace and cast all kinds of things for fun. Once along the railway tracks, I found a large blob of tar that you could break pieces off and chew like gum. I sold pieces to the local kids for a penny. OK, these things were not a good idea, but it does show that our fears are orders of magnitude larger than our dangers. Don’t be a wimp.
Dear Mr Pearse @ur momisugly May 18, 2017 at 7:16 pm
Regarding you statement that I “argue trees are a problem”. I have not done so and did not make such a claim in my comment.
I was merely pointing out the Sasha’s claim that “Volatile organic compounds produced by trees do not cause pollution” is simply not true. Nor was his claim that “Without the input of large amounts of man-made nitrogen oxides by vehicles and power plants, the VOCs released by forests on a summers day have nothing to react with and they do not create any pollution.” More, specifically I was challenging Sasha’s suggestion that air pollution, NOx related or otherwise, would disappear if one were to stop the “input of large amounts of man-made nitrogen oxides by vehicles and power plants”.
My point was, and remains, that a certain level of “air pollution”, as defined by environmental groups, is produced by nature. Even if the U.S. were to produce power solely via renewable and/or nuclear power we would still experience “air pollution” health events in the U.S. under the “air standards” they typically propose.
In my view, environmental activist expend a considerable effort to obscure the existence of “natural pollution” from the general public in an attempt to scare the public from using of fossil fuels. Activist’s efforts to obscure the prevalence of nature sourced mercury in the environment provides another example.
I prefer a more balanced approach that recognizes that we can’t eliminate all sources of “air pollution” and would be better off setting realistic “air standards” while expending the bulk of our efforts on more pressing issues. An example of a more pressing issue would be to address the rise of childhood asthma due to issues apparently unrelated to “air pollution”. (Most medical experts I’ve talked to believe the growing prevalence of asthma in the U.S, is linked to “hygiene hypothesis”. Where the “asthma hygiene hypothesis” suggests the rise in asthma to compromised immune system development in infants due to excessive hygiene).
To paraphrase your words, I’m suggesting environmentalist quit being wimps. A first step in insistenting they quit being “wimps” being confronting them with the hard fact that sweet old “Mother Nature” spends a good deal of time trying to kill them… and explaining to them just how she’s doing it. Most of us understand that, while we like “Mother Nature”, she’s also something of a B_tch.
The entire southern United States (mid-Florida north to the VA-TN-KY border, from the Atlanta coast to the Mississippi River) would politely disagree with you … Actually, we would LOVE to be able agree with you, except as we are required to buy excessively expensive gasoline every summer and fall BECAUSE the natural pine-tree VOC/ozone levels ARE exceeding the EPA’s limits for city air pollution. In the countryside 150 miles from cars.
Ever hear of the “Blue Ridge Mountains” … Named back in Jefferson’s day for the haze and hydrocarbons emitted from ten trillion pines.
RACookPE1978: This exactly.
All others: It is of historical interest (to some, perhaps) that when Gen Lee used the mountains of western Virginia as cover for his advance into Pennsylvania, it was not only the hills themselves that blocked many of the potential long-range sight lines of Federal scouts, but also the thick forests those mountains host including the related summer haze.
Vancouver, BC, suffers similarly during inversions despite its relatively small population of people, cars & industry compared to other urban areas of North America, & it is precisely because of its proximity to heavily forested areas, as well as its location in what amounts to a mountain-walled depression bordering the ocean. Much like L.A., this results in the easy entrapment of lower air levels during temperature inversions, but in this case the primary source of “pollutants” is not human activity, but largely due to the huge stands of nearby forest. This phenomenon has been seen in that area since the 1800s, & the largely plant-based nature of those “pollutants” tested/validated repeatedly in the scientific literature through actual observation.
Incidentally, I don’t believe anyone here is saying that this haze is a huge public health risk — just because someone suffers from asthma (which CAN be made worse by trees & other vegetation) doesn’t mean trees aren’t a net public/environmental benefit. I think what we’re mostly saying is that the ozone/smog phenomena been around a lot longer than the automobile, that the risks are a lot smaller than many concerned citizens often make it out to be, & that the “solutions” may be far more complicated — in both implementation AND consequence — than simply heading back to the days of the horse & buggy (e.g.).
You forgot to mention that thunderstorm lightning also produce natural NOx. and when mixed with natural VOCs produced by plants (scents, fragances, mainly monoterpenes: myrcene, pinene, camphene, menthol, Carvacrol, linalol, tymol, and many more … ) they produce ozone, ground level ozone.
Natural ozone, which is as bad as the car produced one. The only difference is that you cannot sue nature. And we know that the green movement is all about money.
It would be interesting to know what the Green Radicals think is NOT a pollutant (if anything).
…Unicorn Farts ? ;o)
Oh, pot** is not a pollutant. (eye roll) It’s “natural.” <– That makes it okay. Still clean and sober! (not)
If you want to find Enviro-Pharisees, go to Seattle. Try to order a famous dessert at a popular waterfront restaurant: "Sorry, not on the menu anymore. Transfats. No transfats in Seattle." Walk down Alaskan Avenue a few blocks. "What's all that stench?" The annual "Hempfest." Don't try to smoke a regular cigarette there, though… (eye roll).
Alcohol is still okay, too. It's "sort of" natural.
** Note: While I think pot is disgusting, I am NOT condemning its use (out of the public square —
since merely to use it is to be “drunk”). Alcohol for some, pot for others. Whatever.
What I am condemning is: hypocrisy.
++++++++++
Aw, Butch (lol — what a name 🙂 ). Thanks. I gotta say, I voted “No” for legalizing pot in WA. Several reasons. And as for myself, I will NEVER use it (against my religion, i.e., to be “drunk,” even in private, is to sin.)
hy po cri sy – Janice the menace [ calamity Jane ]
here’s to you
https://youtu.be/CjnDlhra47A
Showing yet again that Ronald Reagan was right!
He said a lot of things. Which one(s) do you have in mind?
“Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”
..so, all along it’s been the trees..second hand ozone
Trees have been around for a long time…..deal with it
This is such old news. I remember when Reagan claimed that trees cause pollution. Boy, was he condemned.* But, he was right. Terpenes was the name for the pollutant then. The EPA, in assessing pollution in a city, allowed higher levels of pollution in cities with a large number of trees since the pollution from trees was natural.
Terpenes make the smoky mountains smoky.
*Then, as now, the R’s took the vituperation in silence. Instead of ridiculing the D’s, they just took their licks in the court of public opinion. I suspect they did that to avoid alienating the great majority of the voters, who of course are ignorant.
Indeed, very old news. In fact, it’s so old (40-plus years) that I would have thought these “experts” had already done a good estimate of the contribution by trees to VOC emissions was pretty well understood.
Just models?
This isn’t about trees. It’s about the continuing efforts of the left to get us to abandon automobiles. What we should abandon are the diesel buses used for fixed-route transit in most cities, if they can’t attract more ridership than they have, which makes them less fuel-efficient than private automobiles.
” trees and other plants release volatile organic compounds, or VOCs, ” –
the main producers of condensation germs in the concrete and asphalt deserts of cities – let it rain !
Back when I was young in Los Angeles County, they were proposing new emissions rules for cars including volatile emissions reductions. But even back then people noted that 50% of all hydrocarbon emissions were from plant life. Therefore, smog in LA can never be controlled completely unless you remove all plants.
Much like the “Smoky Mountains”, terpenes cause air pollution.
IIRC, the aboriginal people called the Los Angeles basin The Land of Many Smokes.
I believe it still is.
San Francisco was Yerba Buena or ‘good herb’. 1792 log of HMS Discovery recorded anchoring ‘about a league below the Presidio in a place they called Yerba Buena’. (Theme Time Radio Hour and Wiki)
https://www.google.at/search?q=Shanghai+tree+planting&oq=Shanghai+tree+planting&aqs=chrome.
We just need to borrow 1 quadrillion dollars from China so that we can have them build a gigantic air purifier and we’ll all be safe from trees. Now, just where to put it…
There was a story put out by a paint contractors’ trade publication that some California restrictions on VOC’s were fully met by vegetation emissions in the LA basin, so no industrial emissions were allowable without the LA basin being in noncompliance.
Here’s an idea courtesy of New Atlas (the new Pop Sci) for an air purifying billboard.
http://newatlas.com/utecs-air-purifying-billboard-installed-at-lima/31931/
http://img-1.newatlas.com/utecair.jpg
http://cdn2.ubergizmo.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/air-purifying-billboard.jpg
At which point, your Honour, my gun went off.
Total accident.
OMG This study is just too stupid.